Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They which shall be accounted worthy" is in Greek the passive aorist partiple of kataksio (to deem worthy of).

According to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, aorist participles often have a generic meaning. Nowhere does he say that they have a future meaning. So how can the translator of the KJV have translated "kataksiothentes" as a future?

For me the right translation should be :

They which are accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage

With a future tense resurrection becomes a future event.
With a present tense, resurrection is a mode of being which is accessible to humans at any time.

According to my shallow learning about the greek tenses, aorist(and secondary teses in general) usually denotes the idea of a single action, rather than the past, while the primary tense denotes a continued action. -- Maybe except in the active mood, direct voice. So I think it also can be used to denote a single action in the future, too. I'll have to look up Smyth to be sure about this point.

a. of themselves participles are timeless (at least outside of indirect discourse) but do express aspect
b. whatever time they do express is typically relative to the leading verb
c. after Smyth, aorist participles are antecedent or coincident to the time of the leading verb

Given the leading verbs [face=SPIonic]gamou=sin[/face] and [face=SPIonic]gamizontai[/face] - both presents - it seems to me perfectly fair to translate:

"Those who are deemed worthy...neither marry..." (coincident)

In fact, the second translation is how the "The New Jerusalem Bible" (and muminustrollus) has it.

The KJV translation might be an attempt at a 'proleptic aorist'. If so, then we do well to read "..which shall be accounted worthy.." as a final state that properly exists outside of time, and not as a future tense.

Finally, Smyth appears to be mute on the question of the 'proleptic aorist'.

Can we say that the proleptic aorist, unlike the future tense, stresses the the unequivocal outcome of the event at some unknown time in the future? It is going to happen, but the time is not defined (aorist = undefined).

The RSV translation: but those who are accounted worthy to attain...

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:Can we say that the proleptic aorist, unlike the future tense, stresses the the unequivocal outcome of the event at some unknown time in the future? It is going to happen, but the time is not defined (aorist = undefined).

Hey Peter,

Yes, that seems like a good definition of the proleptic aorist.

You raise an interesting issue with regard to the meaning of 'aorist'. Dionysisus Thrax and his commentators apply the term 'aorist' (undefined, indefinite) to both the aorist and future tenses. They would seem to mean that both tenses are indifferent with respect to nearness in time. "I went to the store" could mean I went yesterday or 10 years ago. Similarly, "I will go to the store" could mean in the next 5 seconds or some day in the far future.

Later authors like Goodwin regard the meaning of 'aorist' from a more aspectual perspective, e.g., having to with freedom from the limitations imposed by aspectual concepts like completion, progress, repetition, etc.

The proleptic aorist must take its force from aorist aspect and not from any past temporal reference.

However, it is a mistake to add the word "and" after labon. Citing C.F. Moule to the effect that "in the New Testament there is no exception to the rule that an aorist participle denotes an action prior to that of the main verb, with the possible exception of two passages in Acts,"40 some would translate: "He emptied himself [in death], having taken the form of a slave, having appeared as man." However, if ekenosen is to refer to an incarnation, it is clear that Jesus did not empty himself having first become a slave. It is better to render the sentence, "he emptied himself by taking the form of a slave."

I think part of the problem here...is that we're looking to Smyth for our Grammatical help.....he doesn't mention the Aorist as "Proleptic"....it's a label that is used much more commonly by the purely Koine guys (BDF, Robertson, Wallace). Don't get me wrong, I love Smyth, and use it often when reading Classical....but it fit's under the old adage "The right tool for the right job" By the time the NT came around, the Greek language had been messed up enough that a lot of the Classical rules and catagories don't apply.

I ran into this a lot with my 4th year Greek prof, who had a Classical Greek training, he didn't have nearly as many lexical catagories for datives and genatives, etc....he felt a lot of the current (Biblical or Koine) lexical catagories have more to do with theology and interpretation.